The High Court dismissed criminal revisions challenging a maintenance order and an ex parte attachment warrant. The Court found no merit in the respondent's claim that the petitioner left voluntarily, noting silence and lack of effort to trace them, and held the lower court's assessment of necessity and income was correct.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 13.11.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
CRL.REVISION CASE NOS.1371 OF 2017 & 161 OF 2018 AND CRL.M.P.NO.13356 OF 2017 & 1313 OF 2018
S.Rajaseelan @ Harish Kumar .. Petitioner in
both petitions
versus
1. R.Malathi .. 1st Respondent in
both petitions
2. R.Priyadharishini (minor)
represented by her mother and natural
guardian, 1st respondent .. 2nd respondent
in both petitions
3. The Accounts Officer,
Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai-600 001 .. 3 rd Respondent
in Crl.RC 161/18
Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.1371 of 2017:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in M.C.No.22 of 2016 dated 03.08.2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambattur and set aside the same.
Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.161 of 2018:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 20.12.2017 in Crl.M.P.No.3704 of 2017 in M.C.No.22 of 2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Kaviyanathan for in both petitions M/s.Nathan and Associates For Respondents : Mr.T.Muruganantham 1 & 2 in both petitions
COMMON ORDER
Since both the above captioned Criminal Revision Cases are inter-related and arose out of the same subject matter in M.C.No.22 of 2016, the same are taken up together and being disposed of vide this common order.
Rs.20,000/- for herself and Rs.15000/- for her daughter since the respondent failed and neglected to maintain and look after them. Resisting the petition, the respondent filed a counter, wherein, he stated that he or his parents never ill-treated the petitioner and the petitioner conceived twice and got aborted and she was suffering from incompetent Cervix. However, the respondent is taking much care of the petitioner and he took her to several hospitals and later, the petitioner gave birth to second petitioner and when the respondent went to the hospital to see his daughter, he was pushed out of the hospital by the members of the petitioner family and despite the request made by the respondent to come and live with him, the petitioner never turned up. Therefore, the respondent sought for dismissal of the maintenance petition.
petitioner to leave the matrimonial home. It is pertinent to note that even according to the respondent, as averred in the counter affidavit in para 11, that they lived peacefully for some days, but one day without even informing the respondent, the petitioner took her daughter and left the home and immediately she changed phone numbers and that there is no connection between him and the petitioners for the past two years. This would show that the respondent is least bothered about departure of the petitioners from the matrimonial home and thereafter, he did not even make any attempt to enquire them and take steps to find out their whereabouts and bring them home. In fact, the Court below has taken note of this attitude of the respondent and observed that any prudent man will not keep quiet when his wife and child had gone out of the house without any intimation. Apart from this, it is pertinent to note that on earlier occasion, there was an order passed against him by the Court below, directing him to pay the maintenance, against which, he filed a revision and also as against the dismissal of O.P. filed for divorce, he filed an appeal and when both of the cases were pending, he cleverly accepted for disposal of the matters before the Lok Adalath and after closure of the matters, the respondent just lived for 15 days and again started to abandon the petitioners and thereby, made the earlier order of maintenance ineffective, which again prompted the petitioner to come forward with a fresh petition for maintenance, which was rightly allowed by the Court below. Even in his counter affidavit, in para 11, the respondent has clearly stated that the petitioner took her daughter and went away and immediately phone numbers were changed and there is no connection between both of them for the past two years, i.e. on the date filing of the counter. Therefore, by this, it is clear that the respondent has not taken any steps to even trace out or to find out whereabouts of the petitioners. This conduct of the respondent has been highlighted by the Court below by stating that any prudent man would not keep quiet when his wife along with the child left the matrimonial home without any intimation. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that the petitioner herself left the matrimonial home voluntarily, cannot be accepted. Further, the respondent has not proved with any clinching material all his contentions, viz., that the petitioner's plan is to swindle the property of the respondent and at her insistence, he executed a sale deed in favour of her uncle and that the petitioner is earning money by real estate business and that he spent 8,00,000/- for setting up a new house for the welfare of the petitioner and her daughter, etc. As regards execution of the sale deed by the respondent in favour of the uncle, the Court below has rightly pointed out that the conveyance was done by duly executing the sale deed for a valid consideration and that if at all it is true, then what is the necessity for the respondent to execute the deed in favour of
uncle of the petitioner instead of her. As regards fixing the quantum of the maintenance, the Court below has taken note of Ex.R8, pay drawn particulars, which establishes that the respondent takes Rs.42,497/- after deductions, which includes towards festival advance and hence, the Court below came to the conclusion that the respondent was drawing Rs.70,000/- per month towards his salary and on that basis, awarded Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5000/- for both the petitioners respectively and also directed the respondent to pay school fees of the 2nd petitioner for every academic year.
Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar
suk To
+1cc to M/s.Nathan and Associates, Advocate, S.R.No.77601 +1cc to Mr.T.Muruganantham, Advocate, S.R.No.77561 (05/03/2019)
CRL.R.C.NOs.1371 of 2017 & 161 of 2018
SAI(CO) CS/04/03/2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the lower court order allowing monthly maintenance despite the respondent's claim of voluntary departure by the petitioner.
Whether the revision against the order directing salary attachment for non-payment of maintenance is maintainable after dismissal of the main revision.
S.Rajaseelan @ Harish Kumar
R.Malathi
R.Priyadharishini
The Accounts Officer, Chennai Port Trust
V. Parthiban
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
